Leftover Metrocard Change Infuriates Some
UPDATE: City To Remove 14 Blocks Of Bike Lanes On Bedford Ave.
Hamster Rides The 4 Train
2nd Avenue Subway Cooling System Will "Blight" UES
Should Payphones Be Free?
There's something hilarious about the idea of all the world leaders, in for the UN's World Summit, staying at the same hotel. They're not all staying at one hotel, as we learned from today's Times article about how hotel managers have had to make do with their limited number of super high-end suits for the visiting world leaders, but we think it'd be funny, a dorm for the world leaders. Like they would have to round out quarters for the laundry, figure out who would need to clean the suite, sign up for time to watch cable in the common room. But it's actually as glamorous as it's supposed to be for a world leader, with your advance team visiting various suites and deciding whether or not you should have dazzling views of Central Park or three bedrooms with a grand piano. There's also a shortage of world-leader-quality rooms because many hotels have been converted to condos...which makes us wonder if countries will simply rent out deluxe apartments in the sky next time around.
President Bush, Russian President Vladimir Putin (Pooty Pants), and Chinese President Hu Jintao are all staying at the Waldorf-Astoria. This morning, President Bush addressed the UN (more counterterrorism, please) and traffic started its three day snarl, which leads some to wonder if the UN should be relocated to, say, Governors Island. And for another take on the World Summit, read Nicholas D. Kristof's Op-Ed lament about the U.N.'s failure to confront world poverty.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
It reminds me of that Olsen twins movie, Winning London, where they're doing this model UN summit and all stay in the same hotel together in London and there's all sorts of crazy hijinks. I could swear somebody wound up crawling through the vent system, but that may have been a million other movies/TV shows instead.
http://www.mckinsey.com/images/thumb_mgi_philippines.jpg
Nicholas Kristof and the NY Times editorial board are towering paragons of virtue. It won't be long until us plebes will no longer be able to read these fire and brimstone rants of moral superiority as the Times is going to start charging a subscription fee to read this stuff. Masochists everywhere would pay $1.50 for Kristof's piece of literary umbrage.
are you a plant from fox news, pugsley? jealous that people from the times can use words with more than two syllables? i don't think that they're planning on charging -- i've been hearing that for ages, and it's never happened.
"limited number of super high-end suits for the visiting world leaders,"
Let the copy editing begin! What, Armani isn't good enough? Or are we talking lawsuits here?
I think you mean "Pootie-Poot," not "Pooty Pants."
"hotel managers have had to make do with their limited number of super high-end **suits** for the visiting world leaders."
Brightliner: I am now completely convinced that Jen (aka Ms. Malaprop) is doing this on purpose. I get the joke.
No davey, I'm not a plant from Fox news. Are you blowing Nicholas Cristof?
Davey,
The Times actually is going to start charging for some of their online content in less than a week, mostly for op-ed columnists like Kristof, Krugman, Friedman, Herbert and Dowd. But it's a fairly reasonable $50 a year for non-subscribers, which includes up to 100 articles from their archives every month. Considering they currently charge almost $4 for each article, if you need just one older article a month, it's paid for itself. Even better, if you're a home delivery subscriber, it's free. More details here. Personally, I don't intend to subscribe just for the columns. If I really need to get my op-ed fix, I'll just hit the library once a week. Information wants to be free! Freeeeee!
Oh to be a fly by those minibars...
Oh Wow Catman is my Buddy